Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Advan

Advan

by solaradex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Token risk

token_risk

Generate a paid Solana token risk report by combining mint/freeze authority checks, Jupiter Tokens V2 data, and RugCheck; payment of $0.01 USDC via x402 is required.

Instructions

Paid token risk report ($0.01 USDC via x402 exact on solana:EtWTRABZaYq6iMfeYKouRu166VU2xqa1). Combines RPC mint/freeze authority, Jupiter Tokens V2, and RugCheck. Ordinary MCP clients that cannot pay receive a payment-required error.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mint": "<mint>"
    },
    "name": "token_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC), the exact payment rail (x402 exact on solana:EtWTRABZaY...), the aggregated upstream sources, and the concrete failure mode for non-paying clients. It stops short of saying anything about latency, rate limits, or what the report body looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the price plus the purpose are front-loaded so an agent sees the cost barrier before anything else. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool the payment and failure-mode disclosure covers the biggest risk. However, the description leaves the parameter entirely unexplained and gives no sense of report contents or shape, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is never mentioned in the description — the word 'mint' does not appear in prose, so nothing explains that it must be a base58 Solana SPL token mint address despite the regex pattern. Only the 'solana:' payment-network prefix hints at the domain, which is weak compensation for a fully undocumented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (token risk report) and enumerates the exact data sources fused into it (RPC mint/freeze authority, Jupiter Tokens V2, RugCheck), which is far more concrete than the title. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_quote or wallet_portfolio, though it never explicitly says the output is a risk assessment for a Solana token mint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer that this is the tool to call for pre-trade token safety checks on the Solana tokens handled by get_quote/build_swap_tx. The one explicit gating statement is the payment precondition ('ordinary MCP clients that cannot pay receive a payment-required error'), which is useful but is a capability constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools